Lynch v. La Rue
Decision Date | 07 April 1955 |
Citation | 278 S.W.2d 85,198 Tenn. 101,2 McCanless 101 |
Parties | Osteen LYNCH v. J. C. LA RUE d/b/a The J. C. La Rue Canning Company, et al. 2 McCanless 101, 198 Tenn. 101, 278 S.W.2d 85 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Emery B. Gill, Centerville, D. D. Humphreys, Jr., Hohenwald, for appellant.
R. R. Haggard, Waynesboro, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Osteen Lynch from the judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing his petition for compensation under the provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Law, Code, Sec. 6851 et seq.
In August of 1945 Lynch received an electricity shock which rendered him unconscious for a substantial number of minutes. This accident arose out of, and in the course of, his employment by defendant, J. C. La Rue, whose business fell within the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Law.
The doctor who represented both the employer and his insurer was immediately called. That doctor found Lynch's condition 'pretty low', with a blood count that was 'very low'. His head was hurting. In response to an inquiry as to what those symptoms indicated, this doctor said 'you get that from an electrical shock, or you can get it from any shock'. Six weeks thereafter he discharged Lynch as 'completely recovered'.
Lynch immediately went back to work, but for another employer. With the exception of a short interruption for an appendix operation in December of 1945, and a tonsil and hemorrhoid operations in 1946 he worked regularly until September of 1952. He then consulted his doctor with reference to the cause of a 'drawing' in the back of his neck which he first noticed in August, 1952. This was followed in October of 1952 by blackout spells and drowsiness preceded by prolonged severe headaches.
His physician, Dr. Woods, sent him to Dr. McClure, a neurological surgeon, for further diagnosis. An X-ray of his skull revealed the fact that Lynch had a 'cerebrovascular disease'. An operation followed. He continues under treatment by Dr. McClure.
Within a few months after the discovery of this physical condition, Lynch brought this suit against his employer, LaRue, on the theory that the disease which was first discovered in October of 1952 was caused by the aforesaid electrical shock received in August of 1945.
One of the three reasons given by the Trial Judge for the dismissal of the petition is that the evidence 'failed to show any causal connection between the accident and the injuries complained of in his petition'.
Only two of the doctors were asked about any connection between the 1945 accident and the 1952 disease. One of these was Dr. Powers, the physician who attended him immediately after the 1945 accident. When asked whether the brain condition found by Dr. McClure 'could have been' caused by the 1945 electrical shock he replied 'well, I am not an expert witness, understand, but it could have been, yet, I am not saying yes'. He repeated that he was not saying yes, but that 'it is possible'.
The testimony of Dr. McClure as to the cause of this brain disease discovered in 1952 is that:
'The cause of this trouble is difficult to definitely define, although there are several possible causes in his case, namely, a severe electrical burn over the right side of his head ten years ago, with an extreme nervous tension ever since, either of which factors could be responsible.'
There is no evidence that Mr. Lynch suffered 'an extreme nervous tension ever since' the 1945 accident. The evidence is quite the contrary. Therefore, Dr. McClure's testimony is that the electrical shock received in 1945 'could be responsible' for the brain condition discovered by Dr. McClure.
It is to be noted that neither of the medical witnesses was willing to express an opinion that there is a causal relation between the 1945 accident and the brain disease discovered in 1952. The extent to which they would go is that, in the language of Dr....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
...Co. v. Lankford, 559 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn.1978); Laughlin Clinic, Inc. v. Henley, 208 Tenn. 252, 345 S.W.2d 675 (1961); Lynch v. LaRue, 198 Tenn. 101, 278 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn.1955). Whereas numerous jurisdictions have rejected medical experts' conclusions based upon a "probability," a "likelihood,"......
-
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n
...397 S.W.2d at 369; Cas Walker's Cash Stores, Inc. v. Livesay, 215 Tenn. 306, 309, 385 S.W.2d 745, 746 (1965); Lynch v. J.C. LaRue, 198 Tenn. 101, 106, 278 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1955). This Court has consistently held that causation and permanency of a work-related injury must be shown in most case......
-
Jones v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 1
...v. Ison, 538 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tenn.1976); P & L Construction Co., Inc. v. Lankford, 559 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Tenn.1978); Lynch v. La Rue, 198 Tenn. 101, 278 S.W.2d 85, 86 (1955). Specifically, Hartford argues that the medical testimony of Robert Winston, M.D., a general practitioner, is insuffi......
-
Davis v. Gulf Ins. Group
...against the findings below, the decision will be upheld so long as any material evidence supports it. Lynch v. La Rue Canning Co., 198 Tenn. 101, 278 S.W.2d 85 (1954); Morrison v. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. James, 210 Tenn. 243, 298 S.W.2d 714 (1957); London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of Amer......